Legal Opinion
Hainbuchner v. Miner
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 24, 1987No. 86-753PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
Appellant, John Miner, has maintained throughout these proceedings that he is entitled to maintain the present action in contribution pursuant to R.C. 1707.41. There is no basis in law or in fact for this contention. R.C. 1707.41 provides in relevant part:
“In addition to the other liabilities imposed by law any person who, by a written or printed circular, prospectus, or advertisement, offers any security for sale, or receives the profits accruing from such sale, is liable, to any person who purchased such security relying on such circular, prospectus, or advertisement, for the loss or damage…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Federal ExpressCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Wright v. SchickOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- National Bondholders Corp. v. Seaboard Citizens Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
- Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. GordonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
3Cited by6 opinions
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Federated Management Co. v. Coopers & LybrandOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Howell v. RichardsonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- City of Columbus v. Alden E. Stilson & AssociatesOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- City of Cleveland v. HoganCity of Cleveland Municipal Court · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.